There are two logical paths for Britain to take from here. Unfortunately, neither are politically possible As a country, Britain is stuck. Brexit was advertised as the way out of this rut back in 2016; even the most ardent Brexit supporter would have to admit that this hasn’t happened. I think I’ve concluded why we’re marooned in a less than ideal place - but not how we manage to get free, which unfortunately, as I will explain, is a next to impossible task given the current state of British politics.
We could have limited immigration while in EU. Firstly, FOM didn't apply to non EU citizens. Secondly, within EU FOM rules, people are required to register after 90 days. If they can't fund themselves or don't have employment or study, they can be forced to leave. UK made political choice not to enforce those rules but could have & that is how immigration is controlled within EU countries. Thirdly, if there is no growth or fewer jobs in one country, FOM works by folk moving to another in search of employment or, in case of Poland right now, folk move back to their own country where there is growth (& now under Tusk, more optimism for them.)
There is in fact a third path - which is economically and environmentally sustainable and high value growth. This includes modern infrastructure - to catch up with our EU peers - but not low value and cyclical mass construction. If we want to even maintain let alone improve living standards and (woeful) health outcomes, while meeting our ballooning interest bill, then we must leverage our existing leading scientific and technological research base into modern high value manufacturing and exports. This currently includes sectors such as battery technology, energy storage, nanotechnology, metrology, robotics and of course life sciences. Not only are these high value/high growth and non-cyclical - but also have light environmental footprints.
Of course, Brexit was the very worst thing we could have done - as leaving the Single Market has just made us even more reliant on low value or declining sectors such as construction, retail and finance (check out the recent share prices of Nat West and Barclays). Why invest in the UK when you are going to hit an export or supply chain roadblock ? As an aside, my guess is that it only the London "tech hub" which has so far kept the UK out of technical recession - as small businesses are now failing at similar rates to the financial crash.
The economist and broadcaster Paul Mason has been trying behind the scenes to guide Labour towards this path - and I see yesterday that Sanwar has talked of making Scotland a modern "manufacturing powerhouse".
I would count this as variant of plan A, because it's still growth and requires:
fact-based assessment of reality, which Tories are against
still immigration of high-qualified people to do the work right now, along with qualifying Brits for the future - which Tories are against
raising tax and spending them - which Tories are against
I think either Chris Grey or Nick himself wrote some time ago about the hard math problem that if Britain has X number of young people of working age, you can either upgrade them with better education (not just expensive college, but also more job education, like technical schools) so they can do high-qualified (high-paid) jobs, like nursing and IT; or you can keep them low-qualified to do the low-paid jobs - picking food in the fields, waiters etc.
But the numbers of Brits simply don't add up for both areas, so you have to import = permit immigration for either low-paid jobs = eastern europeans picking food and being waiters; or for high-qualified jobs: foreign IT workers and nurses.
It's similar to how the available area and climate don't work out to feed all of the population in Britain without imports, even with improved agriculture methods, no matter how often Brexiters talked about victory gardens and allotments.
Agreed it's a branch off plan A - but with crucial differences which the Tories and Brexiteers have never understood. A key reason for this is that by and large they have no background or solid understanding of industry or business in general.
As you allude, it also follows that reliance on low productivity sectors inevitably requires more workers and economic migration. This is why hard Brexit always had to equate to higher immigration.
The problem is that any growth agenda needs to be government-led through massive increased spending on infrastructure and services. But Tories & Labour are both under the delusion that this has to be paid for with taxes & "borrowing", which they insist can't be increased . This is the lead weight of traditional, mythical economic thinking. It's government spending that creates money, and with it, economic activity. Taxes reclaim and destroy the money, to control inflation (interest rates don't actually do that). No currency-issuing government ever has a need to borrow its own money. Govt debt is simply a way for currency holders (you & me) to invest in the country and be paid interest. I.e. NS&I, premium bonds, pension funds buying gilts, etc. If we had a treasury that understood economic realities we might get somewhere.
Yes. An US newspaper (before Covid) had an article about how actual scientists had crunched the numbers and that every dollar spent by government on direct welfare = food stamps, generated 1.x dollars for the economy.
Because if a poor person is given a few hundred dollars of welfare, they go out and spend that money on food, which produces more income for the supermarket, so more wage for workers/ or more workers, so the workers spend their wage on food => economy increases.
this compared to upper-class welfare = tax cuts and similar, which generated... 0.7 dollars for the economy.
Because when rich people get tax cuts, they don't "create jobs", they invest that money in the financial market. Even if it's not illegal / taxfree in Bermuda, it's still indirect to put money in a fond that then buys already-issued shares of companies: zero win for the economy, the profit is generated purely by buying low and selling high.
Buying newly-issued stocks, or directly investing into a company, would help the economy, but is also risky, so it's only a small part.
During the pandemic, this was why paying part of workers salary during lock-down was a better economic move than giving tax breaks to the companies.
And yes: building a new High speed rail costs x million GBP, which is paid to the workers and the steel foundry, who then spend the money partly on income tax, but mostly on food and travelling, which boosts companies etc.
If there is no rail, then workers get paid less because less jobs, less travel, less income, less tax.
Even more so with renewable energy: build a windwheel or solar plant now for eg 10 million, and save next year by not spending 1 million to buy coal and gas for burning. And save in year 2, year 3, year 4 for the next 20 years, the money comes back immediately.
You can't force people to buy government debt - and that interest has to paid from somewhere. In other words, our interest bill is real money - every bit as much as departmental or infrastructure spending. In emerging market economics, this is known as the "doom loop" - where currency depreciation demands higher interest rates - leading to higher interest payments - adding to the existing debt burden - pressuring the currency.
Agreed. The amount of debt issued needs to be controlled. But the debt is not required in order to fund spending. Govt doesn't need to borrow back its own money, given it can create what it needs. Taxation is ultimately the means of inflation control.
MMT nonsense. Yes, govt. can create money, but it cannot create value. If your theory had any validity whatsoever, Zimbabwe would be the richest nation on earth.
There’s a contradiction in path 2 as well unless you think socialism is by definition nationalist. Workers being free to take their labour where it’s best rewarded would permit free movement.
Socialism must always have a nationalist element because it entails deliberately making people poorer (like Brexit). Therefore you have to have a continual nationalist propaganda unit devoted to manipulating the workforce while denigrating richer foreigners. And when things start to go really badly wrong, you need direct measures - such as exchange controls.
Option 2 is a non starter. It solves nothing, just perpetuates the current stagnation. It would make more sense if you labelled Option 1 as the Keynesian solution rather than high growth and emphasising immigration (though we do need to encourage that). Option 1 isn't just preferable, it is the only viable option. Keynesian economics is a proven way to avoid or escape recession without unnecessary pain. Given the climate crisis, the growth should focus on sustainable industries, energy and technology, not infrastructure for its own sake (though transport investment is desperately required, just not HS2).
Another thing for Option 1 that I'm surprised you didn't mention would moving closer to the EU to stimulate trade with it. Rejoining isn't likely or even possible in the near future but removing the barriers to trade that Johnson's Free Trade Deal put in place would be highly beneficial. If we agreed not to diverge from EU standards most of the unnecessary paperwork could simply disappear because it would no longer be necessary. customs forms would still have to be completed but they could be much simpler with guaranteed common standards. That won't happen under the current Tory Party, but Labour are keen to take the pain out of Brexit in this way.
Associate membership is very possible. This was immediately dismissed by Labour - suggesting they hadn't even taken time to seriously consider it. When in power, they will be forced to reconsider due to economic imperatives.
Lots of great comments, with many believing that growth is the only way out of the mess that the tories have created. Massive investment in infrastructure and new homes is a prerequisite for growth, and I would include the renationalisation of water and sewerage. There is no way the asset managers who own the water companies are going to step up and make the needed investment. They've robbed the UK population, and their payback should be a forced purchase at a rate discounted for the money they've siphoned off. Re-training some of those facilitators of money laundering (option b: prison) should provide a pool of clever lawyers and accountants to make this fly. There are any number of great ideas for building affordable and climate friendly homes, and investment in training the tradespeople who will be needed to build them, and in collecting and improving on the best ideas from around the world could make the UK a centre of excellence, providing potential for the export of construction consultancy services. As others have pointed out, the UK really is world-leading in many areas, although how long that will remain unless something is done to break out of the vicious downward spiral is questionable.
The reality is, of course, that nothing will be done, and that the UK will continue down its path of decline, with the RW press continuing to claim that things are worse everywhere else. I gather that we in Germany are now the poor man of Europe.😱 Starmer & Co will get 5 years trying to manage the dumpster fire and hoping for divine intervention, before a Farage-inspired right wing party emerges to take over.
Actually, being pro-ecology right now means being in favour of specific growth program, so plan A.
Ecology groups/ people are against "growth for its own sake as positive" because it's not. Producing 100 000 new cars each year is not good - even if they were all electric (which they aren't) you quickly run out of space to drive them and park them.
But the Green New Deal with US Democrats are lauding, and which EU is trying to also get going, is "Climate crisis is bad for people living here and economy is down, so lets build lots of wind power plants and solar plants and insulate homes = lots of jobs and reducing emissions, win-win for all".
So the goal would be "lets build 1 000 new wind plants until we cover 100% of electricity renewable (some non-wind like geothermic or water for steady-coverage), then slow down to building 5 per year for replacement/ upgrade/ as energy demand increases".
That would also mean planning the new jobs - hiring 100 000 people to build them, and training 5 000 more also means planning that in 10 years, the job is done, so what else can the people do? Some will maintain and repair existing, some may be sent abroad to build British wind plants in joint-ventures for poor countries; some may be retrained? Don't just hire people and then fire them without plan, be upfront.
Going pro-ecology would also be part of infrastructure in repairing and upgrading sewage treatment plants, to improve the quality of the rivers (thus benefitting the people living in Britain, not just the companies who pollute), which requires money and competent politicans or high-ranking civil-service people who check up so that things are working as promised (this is the hard part, no bribes from company owners to Tories).
But both planning based on reality instead of vague promises, and raising taxes to actually pay for all that is what the Tories hate.
Good - though very sad - article. I'm basically where you are re: favouring option one and being against option two while thinking option three is by far the most likely.
That said, I think that perhaps options two and three are actually more similar than you've suggested. Option two is a theoretical option: it's coherent, as you've described, and could be pursued by a government willing and able to resolve the political tensions and contradictions (and assuming it could retain popular support). But with a declining economy, it's hard to see how the supposed benefits of option two would come about - or hang about. Curating a museum full or retired natives costs money. Without a healthy economy, it can't be afforded.
Likewise, option three, because it won't make long term decisions, is likely to lead to continued decline and the country looking more like the distopia outlined in option two.
Which brings me to Proportional Representation, something that I don't think is very likely to happen, and something I accept isn't a guaranteed ticket to political stability and fabulous wealth, but it does seem to be to be a reasonable way of unlocking many of our political problems. With it parties can form or reform without papering over the tensions you describe in a way that makes them unable to deliver upon any vision. True, they'd likely need to compromise with coalition partners to form a government, but at least the tradeoffs are explicit. More importantly, if voters want to punish failed politicians and parties and boost ones willing to put forward a coherent (whether that be pro or anti-growth) agenda, it enables political change. (And, because you're not reliant on either a relatively small number of marginal constituencies or 'tipping points' in voting, political stability too.)
A party putting forward a decent programme could under the current system jump from nothing to 10% at a General Election and fail to win a seat. Never mind the unfairness of that, how do we as a country expect to benefit from political entrepreneurship if we place such barriers in its way? Likewise why would either of the two major parties risk doing the 'right but unpopular thing' (however defined), dropping from 34% to 29% as a consequence - and losing 70% of their seats? First Past The Post ironically buttresses useless, not decisive government.
The growth option is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. There is no possibility of Britain being able to grow its way out its current, inexorable, decline. The reason for this is that the materials, technology, management expertise and productive labor will all have to be imported. Britain does not produce anything of value to exchange for these goods and services.
The only significant successful UK businesses are the financial manipulators of the City of London. There will always be a market for their services as long as criminals, corrupt politicians and dishonest corporations seek ways to launder their money. Which will be forever.
Face it; there is not a single agency of the British State that is fit for purpose. Not the monarchy, parliament, central and local government, education and training, the military, the "justice" system, etc. All of it useless. You think the Tory govt. is incompetent? Wait till Labour takes over.
The future for Britain is for it to continue in its decline: Destitution is rising; not just poverty, squalor and hunger, real destitution. There will be starvation and perhaps famine. Britain has to import 60% of its food calories. Considering govt., corporation and private debt, Britain's debt load is now over 900% of GDP. Which is itself just a sum of transactions, most of which, in Britain, are of no economic value whatsoever.
There is a way out; starting with re-nationalization of utilities. Education/training has to be invested in and improved. Rebuild a manufacturing capability around the life essentials of the nation. Exploit the few natural resources that Britain has; coal, gas, water. This would take at least 50 years.
As for increased immigration; why? There are already (looking at food and utility consumption) approximately 80 million people in Britain. It would be a better plan to cultivate what human capital is available from the existing population before importing millions more from the 3rd world.
We have world leading scientific research expertise and capability. In fact we are world leaders in several key industrial tech sub sectors. The Brexit government can't mention any of this - because they know they have torpedoed our key trading links by leaving the Single Market - hence since 2016 most new investment has gone overseas (mainly the continent and China).
This is why Truss/Kwarteng didn't once mention manufacturing or exports or indeed explain where the 2.5% growth was expected to come from.
Nationalisation will have some pluses and minuses - but essentially solve nothing or move the dial in terms of living standards.
Apart from ARM holdings, the UK industrial technology firms usually tend to be "mid cap" global firms - such as Renishaw, Spirax-Sarco, Spectris, Croda, Rotork, Victrex, Judges Scientific, etc. Though not household names, they are usually leaders in their specialist and highly important sub sectors. Admittedly they tend to employ in the low thousands - but they are very high value jobs which of course create demand for all sorts of services. The point is that for several years now they have mainly been expanding in Europe and China rather than the UK.
Also, we have many leading industrial/aerospace tech names which over the years have been acquired by US and European conglomerates - but from a research and employment view still operate as if still independent.
I have researched this subject for many years now.
Nick, if immigration is an indicator of job opportunities and growth, why isn't the UK economy growing faster with half a million/yr net incoming? Are they just topping up what would otherwise be a declining workforce? Why can't we just automate for growth?
I never said immigration is an indicator of growth - I said that a high growth policy requires immigration. Just having lots of immigrants does not equal economic growth, or at least , enough to off-set the economic/social issues it creates. You have to have an industrial and regulatory strategy that makes growth possible; immigration is only one, relatively small part of that.
I don't see how automating for growth is possible at the moment. Perhaps in 20 years (I remain sceptical it will even be possible then) but definitely not at the moment. We need actual brains.
Automation requires investment - and that came to a halt in 2016. By leaving the Single Market, we have made ourselves even more reliant on low value sectors - like retail, hospitality, construction - hence continued demand for more workers.
We could have limited immigration while in EU. Firstly, FOM didn't apply to non EU citizens. Secondly, within EU FOM rules, people are required to register after 90 days. If they can't fund themselves or don't have employment or study, they can be forced to leave. UK made political choice not to enforce those rules but could have & that is how immigration is controlled within EU countries. Thirdly, if there is no growth or fewer jobs in one country, FOM works by folk moving to another in search of employment or, in case of Poland right now, folk move back to their own country where there is growth (& now under Tusk, more optimism for them.)
There is in fact a third path - which is economically and environmentally sustainable and high value growth. This includes modern infrastructure - to catch up with our EU peers - but not low value and cyclical mass construction. If we want to even maintain let alone improve living standards and (woeful) health outcomes, while meeting our ballooning interest bill, then we must leverage our existing leading scientific and technological research base into modern high value manufacturing and exports. This currently includes sectors such as battery technology, energy storage, nanotechnology, metrology, robotics and of course life sciences. Not only are these high value/high growth and non-cyclical - but also have light environmental footprints.
Of course, Brexit was the very worst thing we could have done - as leaving the Single Market has just made us even more reliant on low value or declining sectors such as construction, retail and finance (check out the recent share prices of Nat West and Barclays). Why invest in the UK when you are going to hit an export or supply chain roadblock ? As an aside, my guess is that it only the London "tech hub" which has so far kept the UK out of technical recession - as small businesses are now failing at similar rates to the financial crash.
The economist and broadcaster Paul Mason has been trying behind the scenes to guide Labour towards this path - and I see yesterday that Sanwar has talked of making Scotland a modern "manufacturing powerhouse".
I would count this as variant of plan A, because it's still growth and requires:
fact-based assessment of reality, which Tories are against
still immigration of high-qualified people to do the work right now, along with qualifying Brits for the future - which Tories are against
raising tax and spending them - which Tories are against
I think either Chris Grey or Nick himself wrote some time ago about the hard math problem that if Britain has X number of young people of working age, you can either upgrade them with better education (not just expensive college, but also more job education, like technical schools) so they can do high-qualified (high-paid) jobs, like nursing and IT; or you can keep them low-qualified to do the low-paid jobs - picking food in the fields, waiters etc.
But the numbers of Brits simply don't add up for both areas, so you have to import = permit immigration for either low-paid jobs = eastern europeans picking food and being waiters; or for high-qualified jobs: foreign IT workers and nurses.
It's similar to how the available area and climate don't work out to feed all of the population in Britain without imports, even with improved agriculture methods, no matter how often Brexiters talked about victory gardens and allotments.
Agreed it's a branch off plan A - but with crucial differences which the Tories and Brexiteers have never understood. A key reason for this is that by and large they have no background or solid understanding of industry or business in general.
As you allude, it also follows that reliance on low productivity sectors inevitably requires more workers and economic migration. This is why hard Brexit always had to equate to higher immigration.
The problem is that any growth agenda needs to be government-led through massive increased spending on infrastructure and services. But Tories & Labour are both under the delusion that this has to be paid for with taxes & "borrowing", which they insist can't be increased . This is the lead weight of traditional, mythical economic thinking. It's government spending that creates money, and with it, economic activity. Taxes reclaim and destroy the money, to control inflation (interest rates don't actually do that). No currency-issuing government ever has a need to borrow its own money. Govt debt is simply a way for currency holders (you & me) to invest in the country and be paid interest. I.e. NS&I, premium bonds, pension funds buying gilts, etc. If we had a treasury that understood economic realities we might get somewhere.
Yes. An US newspaper (before Covid) had an article about how actual scientists had crunched the numbers and that every dollar spent by government on direct welfare = food stamps, generated 1.x dollars for the economy.
Because if a poor person is given a few hundred dollars of welfare, they go out and spend that money on food, which produces more income for the supermarket, so more wage for workers/ or more workers, so the workers spend their wage on food => economy increases.
this compared to upper-class welfare = tax cuts and similar, which generated... 0.7 dollars for the economy.
Because when rich people get tax cuts, they don't "create jobs", they invest that money in the financial market. Even if it's not illegal / taxfree in Bermuda, it's still indirect to put money in a fond that then buys already-issued shares of companies: zero win for the economy, the profit is generated purely by buying low and selling high.
Buying newly-issued stocks, or directly investing into a company, would help the economy, but is also risky, so it's only a small part.
During the pandemic, this was why paying part of workers salary during lock-down was a better economic move than giving tax breaks to the companies.
And yes: building a new High speed rail costs x million GBP, which is paid to the workers and the steel foundry, who then spend the money partly on income tax, but mostly on food and travelling, which boosts companies etc.
If there is no rail, then workers get paid less because less jobs, less travel, less income, less tax.
Even more so with renewable energy: build a windwheel or solar plant now for eg 10 million, and save next year by not spending 1 million to buy coal and gas for burning. And save in year 2, year 3, year 4 for the next 20 years, the money comes back immediately.
You can't force people to buy government debt - and that interest has to paid from somewhere. In other words, our interest bill is real money - every bit as much as departmental or infrastructure spending. In emerging market economics, this is known as the "doom loop" - where currency depreciation demands higher interest rates - leading to higher interest payments - adding to the existing debt burden - pressuring the currency.
Agreed. The amount of debt issued needs to be controlled. But the debt is not required in order to fund spending. Govt doesn't need to borrow back its own money, given it can create what it needs. Taxation is ultimately the means of inflation control.
MMT nonsense. Yes, govt. can create money, but it cannot create value. If your theory had any validity whatsoever, Zimbabwe would be the richest nation on earth.
There’s a contradiction in path 2 as well unless you think socialism is by definition nationalist. Workers being free to take their labour where it’s best rewarded would permit free movement.
And let’s not forget, Mick Lynch can do exactly that as he has access to an EU passport, the hypocrite.
I was just about to write the same thing. The man is nothing but a hypocrite and no kind of hero
He is simply a facsimile of predecessor Bob Crowe - who also campaigned for Lexit.
Socialism must always have a nationalist element because it entails deliberately making people poorer (like Brexit). Therefore you have to have a continual nationalist propaganda unit devoted to manipulating the workforce while denigrating richer foreigners. And when things start to go really badly wrong, you need direct measures - such as exchange controls.
Whaaaat?? So the workers of the world can’t unite?????
No, they can't. (Wasn't that a sixties pop song ?)
Option 2 is a non starter. It solves nothing, just perpetuates the current stagnation. It would make more sense if you labelled Option 1 as the Keynesian solution rather than high growth and emphasising immigration (though we do need to encourage that). Option 1 isn't just preferable, it is the only viable option. Keynesian economics is a proven way to avoid or escape recession without unnecessary pain. Given the climate crisis, the growth should focus on sustainable industries, energy and technology, not infrastructure for its own sake (though transport investment is desperately required, just not HS2).
Another thing for Option 1 that I'm surprised you didn't mention would moving closer to the EU to stimulate trade with it. Rejoining isn't likely or even possible in the near future but removing the barriers to trade that Johnson's Free Trade Deal put in place would be highly beneficial. If we agreed not to diverge from EU standards most of the unnecessary paperwork could simply disappear because it would no longer be necessary. customs forms would still have to be completed but they could be much simpler with guaranteed common standards. That won't happen under the current Tory Party, but Labour are keen to take the pain out of Brexit in this way.
Associate membership is very possible. This was immediately dismissed by Labour - suggesting they hadn't even taken time to seriously consider it. When in power, they will be forced to reconsider due to economic imperatives.
Lots of great comments, with many believing that growth is the only way out of the mess that the tories have created. Massive investment in infrastructure and new homes is a prerequisite for growth, and I would include the renationalisation of water and sewerage. There is no way the asset managers who own the water companies are going to step up and make the needed investment. They've robbed the UK population, and their payback should be a forced purchase at a rate discounted for the money they've siphoned off. Re-training some of those facilitators of money laundering (option b: prison) should provide a pool of clever lawyers and accountants to make this fly. There are any number of great ideas for building affordable and climate friendly homes, and investment in training the tradespeople who will be needed to build them, and in collecting and improving on the best ideas from around the world could make the UK a centre of excellence, providing potential for the export of construction consultancy services. As others have pointed out, the UK really is world-leading in many areas, although how long that will remain unless something is done to break out of the vicious downward spiral is questionable.
The reality is, of course, that nothing will be done, and that the UK will continue down its path of decline, with the RW press continuing to claim that things are worse everywhere else. I gather that we in Germany are now the poor man of Europe.😱 Starmer & Co will get 5 years trying to manage the dumpster fire and hoping for divine intervention, before a Farage-inspired right wing party emerges to take over.
Actually, being pro-ecology right now means being in favour of specific growth program, so plan A.
Ecology groups/ people are against "growth for its own sake as positive" because it's not. Producing 100 000 new cars each year is not good - even if they were all electric (which they aren't) you quickly run out of space to drive them and park them.
But the Green New Deal with US Democrats are lauding, and which EU is trying to also get going, is "Climate crisis is bad for people living here and economy is down, so lets build lots of wind power plants and solar plants and insulate homes = lots of jobs and reducing emissions, win-win for all".
So the goal would be "lets build 1 000 new wind plants until we cover 100% of electricity renewable (some non-wind like geothermic or water for steady-coverage), then slow down to building 5 per year for replacement/ upgrade/ as energy demand increases".
That would also mean planning the new jobs - hiring 100 000 people to build them, and training 5 000 more also means planning that in 10 years, the job is done, so what else can the people do? Some will maintain and repair existing, some may be sent abroad to build British wind plants in joint-ventures for poor countries; some may be retrained? Don't just hire people and then fire them without plan, be upfront.
Going pro-ecology would also be part of infrastructure in repairing and upgrading sewage treatment plants, to improve the quality of the rivers (thus benefitting the people living in Britain, not just the companies who pollute), which requires money and competent politicans or high-ranking civil-service people who check up so that things are working as promised (this is the hard part, no bribes from company owners to Tories).
But both planning based on reality instead of vague promises, and raising taxes to actually pay for all that is what the Tories hate.
Good - though very sad - article. I'm basically where you are re: favouring option one and being against option two while thinking option three is by far the most likely.
That said, I think that perhaps options two and three are actually more similar than you've suggested. Option two is a theoretical option: it's coherent, as you've described, and could be pursued by a government willing and able to resolve the political tensions and contradictions (and assuming it could retain popular support). But with a declining economy, it's hard to see how the supposed benefits of option two would come about - or hang about. Curating a museum full or retired natives costs money. Without a healthy economy, it can't be afforded.
Likewise, option three, because it won't make long term decisions, is likely to lead to continued decline and the country looking more like the distopia outlined in option two.
Which brings me to Proportional Representation, something that I don't think is very likely to happen, and something I accept isn't a guaranteed ticket to political stability and fabulous wealth, but it does seem to be to be a reasonable way of unlocking many of our political problems. With it parties can form or reform without papering over the tensions you describe in a way that makes them unable to deliver upon any vision. True, they'd likely need to compromise with coalition partners to form a government, but at least the tradeoffs are explicit. More importantly, if voters want to punish failed politicians and parties and boost ones willing to put forward a coherent (whether that be pro or anti-growth) agenda, it enables political change. (And, because you're not reliant on either a relatively small number of marginal constituencies or 'tipping points' in voting, political stability too.)
A party putting forward a decent programme could under the current system jump from nothing to 10% at a General Election and fail to win a seat. Never mind the unfairness of that, how do we as a country expect to benefit from political entrepreneurship if we place such barriers in its way? Likewise why would either of the two major parties risk doing the 'right but unpopular thing' (however defined), dropping from 34% to 29% as a consequence - and losing 70% of their seats? First Past The Post ironically buttresses useless, not decisive government.
The growth option is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. There is no possibility of Britain being able to grow its way out its current, inexorable, decline. The reason for this is that the materials, technology, management expertise and productive labor will all have to be imported. Britain does not produce anything of value to exchange for these goods and services.
The only significant successful UK businesses are the financial manipulators of the City of London. There will always be a market for their services as long as criminals, corrupt politicians and dishonest corporations seek ways to launder their money. Which will be forever.
Face it; there is not a single agency of the British State that is fit for purpose. Not the monarchy, parliament, central and local government, education and training, the military, the "justice" system, etc. All of it useless. You think the Tory govt. is incompetent? Wait till Labour takes over.
The future for Britain is for it to continue in its decline: Destitution is rising; not just poverty, squalor and hunger, real destitution. There will be starvation and perhaps famine. Britain has to import 60% of its food calories. Considering govt., corporation and private debt, Britain's debt load is now over 900% of GDP. Which is itself just a sum of transactions, most of which, in Britain, are of no economic value whatsoever.
There is a way out; starting with re-nationalization of utilities. Education/training has to be invested in and improved. Rebuild a manufacturing capability around the life essentials of the nation. Exploit the few natural resources that Britain has; coal, gas, water. This would take at least 50 years.
As for increased immigration; why? There are already (looking at food and utility consumption) approximately 80 million people in Britain. It would be a better plan to cultivate what human capital is available from the existing population before importing millions more from the 3rd world.
We have world leading scientific research expertise and capability. In fact we are world leaders in several key industrial tech sub sectors. The Brexit government can't mention any of this - because they know they have torpedoed our key trading links by leaving the Single Market - hence since 2016 most new investment has gone overseas (mainly the continent and China).
This is why Truss/Kwarteng didn't once mention manufacturing or exports or indeed explain where the 2.5% growth was expected to come from.
Nationalisation will have some pluses and minuses - but essentially solve nothing or move the dial in terms of living standards.
Like what?
Germany has SAP, US has Oracle, Britain has Grand Theft Auto.
Britain is irrelevant in manufacturing technology. Irrelevant also in any other sphere; economic, social, political or philosophic.
Wrong.
Apart from ARM holdings, the UK industrial technology firms usually tend to be "mid cap" global firms - such as Renishaw, Spirax-Sarco, Spectris, Croda, Rotork, Victrex, Judges Scientific, etc. Though not household names, they are usually leaders in their specialist and highly important sub sectors. Admittedly they tend to employ in the low thousands - but they are very high value jobs which of course create demand for all sorts of services. The point is that for several years now they have mainly been expanding in Europe and China rather than the UK.
Also, we have many leading industrial/aerospace tech names which over the years have been acquired by US and European conglomerates - but from a research and employment view still operate as if still independent.
I have researched this subject for many years now.
Nick, if immigration is an indicator of job opportunities and growth, why isn't the UK economy growing faster with half a million/yr net incoming? Are they just topping up what would otherwise be a declining workforce? Why can't we just automate for growth?
I never said immigration is an indicator of growth - I said that a high growth policy requires immigration. Just having lots of immigrants does not equal economic growth, or at least , enough to off-set the economic/social issues it creates. You have to have an industrial and regulatory strategy that makes growth possible; immigration is only one, relatively small part of that.
I don't see how automating for growth is possible at the moment. Perhaps in 20 years (I remain sceptical it will even be possible then) but definitely not at the moment. We need actual brains.
Automation requires investment - and that came to a halt in 2016. By leaving the Single Market, we have made ourselves even more reliant on low value sectors - like retail, hospitality, construction - hence continued demand for more workers.